Can We Celebrate Independence without Celebrating Armed Rebellion?
First appeared at SI in July of 2011.
Something doesn’t add up. We refer to July 4 as Independence Day. We refer to the war that followed as the Revolutionary War. But if we viewed ourselves as independent of British rule on July 4, how could we have engaged in revolution after July 4? Revolution normally precedes independence. Either the day or the war is a misnomer.
For Christians the incongruity raises deeper questions. Given the response to government that Scripture requires, shouldn’t we oppose the whole idea of revolution, regardless of the circumstances? And if we’re opposed to revolution, can we rejoice in independence?
The Bible and revolution
Genesis 9 is understood by many to represent God’s re-founding of the institution of human government. The NT emphasizes submission to that institution as our Christian duty.
And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” 17 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at Him. (Mark 12:16–17)
Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work… (Titus 3:1)
Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. (1 Peter 2:13–15)
In addition to these, Romans 13:1-7 represents “the governing authorities” (exousias huperechousais) as “from God” and “appointed by God,” and asserts that resisting them is resisting “the ordinance of God.”
It’s hard to imagine how prohibiting the overthrow of governments could be put in stronger terms.
Celebrating independence
Believers must be anti-revolution, just as they are anti-disobedience. But must we be anti-independence? Is there a way Americans can be opposed to revolution yet rejoice in American independence? I believe at least two ways to do this exist.
1. Deny the revolution.
The idea that what occurred in the late 1700s here was not really a revolution has been around for a while. A professor of mine at BJU (back in the 80s) was adamant that no revolution occurred. He had written a book on the subject. (Copies appear to be available still at Amazon).
Though parts of his argument were unclear to me at the time, the gist seemed to be that a British document (perhaps one of the “Intolerable Acts”?) had already effectively ousted the colonies from the empire and that the 1776 Declaration was little more than an acknowledgment of that fact. In this version of events, the war that followed was one of defense, not of revolution—and, though various acts of rebellion did occur, our independence is not the result of a war of rebellion.
More recently, I’ve encountered a different revolution-denial argument (though it is, perhaps, compatible with the previous one). This view reasons that no revolution occurred because the “governing authorities” (to use Paul’s Romans 13 term) were not actually King George and Parliament, but law itself—and the laws of England in particular.
Thomas Paine wrote that “in America the law is king” (Common Sense). Certainly this way of thinking was strong in the “revolutionary” era and echoes some of the thought of Samuel Rutherford (1644: Lex, Rex) and, later, John Locke and Charles (etc.) Montesquieu. (Some trace the idea of “rule of law” or “law as king” back to the Roman Republic, then further to Aristotle. The case could be made that the spirit of it dates to the days of Moses.)
Accordingly, some have argued that Britain violated the terms of its own agreements with the colonies, and some of its own laws in the process, and that, therefore, the contractual relationship between the crown and the colonies was nullified.
In this version of events, no revolution occurred. The colonists who fought in resistance of Britain were fighting in support of law—and the law was the real king. The wording of the Declaration of Independence would seem to support the idea that, right or wrong, the colonists were thinking in these terms.
Perhaps we’ve done them all a disservice by naming the war “revolutionary,” though it seems probable that the likes of Patrick Henry wouldn’t object to the term. (Perhaps the writings of the patriots of that era are full of calls to “revolution.” If I ever knew that, I’ve forgotten. I’m sure a historian will straighten me out.)
2. Separate the result from the process.
If you have no stomach for revolution-denial, you can still rejoice in American independence. Sometimes people do the wrong thing and God graciously overrules their conduct to produce a wonderful result (to Him be praise!). Perhaps we American Christians can proudly sing our “revolutionary” national anthem and salute our flag through teary eyes on the conviction that “God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20), even though we’re uncertain that armed resistance was the right thing to do—or even if we strongly believe both the Declaration and the War were unchristian acts.
One thing is certain. Our duty and opportunity as believers is to give thanks for everything (1 Thess. 5:18, Eph. 5:20). Regardless of our view of revolution in general, or the “American Revolution” in particular, God has greatly blessed us, and the independence we now enjoy is a major part of that blessing.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 3 views
Those of us who were at FBBC (Ankeny) during the 1970s/80s would probably mostly agree with the first argument: the War for Independence was a justifiable response to an unjust government taking unauthorized (by Scripture or reason) power. However, the dear ladies who have elected me as their Chapter Regent this term likely will not start calling themselves the Daughters of the Totally Justifiable War for Independence.
I’ll keep quiet about this thread except to say that at least one person in it is correct.
I am also the father of 5 Americans and married to one now for 30 years, so with that relationship in mind, I’d like to wish all my rebellious friends and relations a very happy 4th of July.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I believe many do not take into account the 151 year period between the accession of Charles I in 1625 and the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The English Civil Wars 1642-1651 and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 set the precedents for the Founding Fathers. If one is going to take the Loyalist position for the AmRev. then that individual should be prepared to take the Royalist potion in the ECW and the Stuart’s\Jacobite side in the GR.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
They were all a bunch of thugs.
Recently read a history of Britain. What a crowd! I have often referred to the monarchy as the Mafia that won. Basically a protection racket where if you were the king’s toady, you were rewarded, and if you paid your taxes you were protected from the king’s henchmen.
Other than that, I’m a loyal monarchist!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. I have read many histories of the Revolutionary era and there is simply no way to Biblically sustain an argument for the revolution. The colonists objected to taxation. I have read numerous source documents from the period from both sides, and can clearly see the outrage the British felt at the American’s stubbornness to accept their sovereignty. This leads to the issue of growing American nationalism in the period after the French and Indian War and the gradual “us vs them” mentality which followed. It is true that colonists were treated more shabbily than British citizens - they were colonists!
Again, I am not against the Revolutionary War. I am against a simplistic reading of history. There is far too often a sentimental, simplistic gloss in popular culture over these points. This becomes particularly dangerous when well-meaning preachers attempt to fashion some sort of divine Manifest Destiny from these events and essentially make America the new Israel!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Matthew Eastland][James K]It is a rather naive view of history to say that England was the legitimate ruler over the colonies. They were closer to an occupying force who taxed without representation. The magna carta stripped the king of certain powers.
Rather naive in the sense of what?
Most of the colonies had charters written by the consent of the king and owing the authority to establish colonies and rule in the name of the king.The Magna Carta was written in 1215, and did very little to limit the king’s authority. It merely established a common system of justice within England. It had nothing at all to do with colonies established in the 1600s.
As for the colonies, some may say that the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution did far more to limit the power of the King in the colonies. The fact of the matter is that the royal authority over the colonies was confirmed again after the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution while strengthening Parliament’s role and authority in those colonies.
It’s hard to call the government that owned the land the colonies were established on and gave consent for colonies to even happen, while exercising governmental authority (including appointing governors) that was followed by the colonists for around 100 years, and then fought a war to protect those colonies an “occupying force.”
Wow, this is so misinformed I wonder where to begin. Since Tyler agrees and finds no justification for the revolution, this is to you too.
The magna carta bound the king to the law. It made the law king instead of the king being the law. If the King (or any government) doesn’t abide by the law of the land, what are people to do? In other words, when the law, which binds all people, is disobeyed by the governmental authorities, are people bound to obey the disobedient governmental authorities or the law? I know the answer. Let us revisit what the magna carta did. It bound the king to the law.
Why do you follow american law instead of english law? If the revolution was evil, has time made it okay for you?
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Btw Tyler, you couldn’t biblically sustain the argument that Christians should fight in war now. We are talking about fallen people struggling for power over other fallen people in a world system that will be destroyed by Christ’s return.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
I agree with what Matthew said here - I hadn’t looked at what you cited. I’m really not interested in being an apologist for the biblical warrant for the American Revolution. I do, however, agree broadly with what you said above:
We are talking about fallen people struggling for power over other fallen people in a world system that will be destroyed by Christ’s return.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
For what it’s worth at this point, the concept that the law is king did not originate with Thomas Paine. I cited him as an example of public rhetoric expressing the concept among the colonists. The idea is older. The term “lex rex” dates to Rutherford, 1644 or so. But the concept is older. Probably Roman.
It’s relevance for the “revolution” has to do with governing terms accepted by the governing powers themselves. That is, if Britain had established the colonies from a standpoint of absolute monarchy, there would be no biblical reason to justify revolt. The authority would legitimately rest in the monarch. He would be Paul’s “powers that be.” But the colonies were established in an era where the governing powers themselves—king and parliament—claimed to operate under certain principles and set the colonies up with the rights of Englishmen under English law. The idea that law is king and the “king” is under it was already part of the mix of English political principles by then.
So if all of that is accurate, you have an illegal government scenario. The portions of the Declaration and king’s response posted above bear this out.
What remains has to do with semantics. If you define “revolution” as overthrowing an established government, this doesn’t appear to me to be what happened. If you define it as “any unwilling transfer of power,” even then, one could argue, where was the power? In law? Then there was not really any transfer. So to get a really strong case for “revolution” you have to define it as “defending yourself from illegal government oppression” or “fighting off an invading army”—neither of these are widely used definitions of the term.
Gen. 9 and social contract. Personally I don’t see it there. I think it’s anachronistic to see it there. When we read “by man” we are being told that mankind has the responsibility to honor the life of mankind. What we’re not told is how this responsibility ought to be structured and carried out… only that it belongs to human beings. It’s pretty hard to read “government by consent of the governed” there.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] Gen. 9 and social contract. Personally I don’t see it there. I think it’s anachronistic to see it there. When we read “by man” we are being told that mankind has the responsibility to honor the life of mankind. What we’re not told is how this responsibility ought to be structured and carried out… only that it belongs to human beings. It’s pretty hard to read “government by consent of the governed” there.Just curious, how else would you see it implemented in the days immediately following the flood - probably for a century or more - until the population had rebounded to the point that a formal government structure could even be created?
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Sirs,
I have been involved in discussions on this topic at SI before,
and for some reason, (usually it’s an attack on my tone, or my attitude or my lack of sufficient vitae), I am ignored.
So I will remind you all again.
A quote from the above piece by Patrick Henry,
“We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.”
Gentlemen, you need to reacquaint yourselves with the Doctrine of Interposition.
Some Biblical examples of a lesser magistrate interposing themselves between the people and a higher magistrate,
The Priests against Queen Athaliah in II KIngs 11
King Uzziah and Azariah the priest II Chronicles 26
Paul’s appeal to Festus in Acts 25
Here is a short article on the subject. I’m sure some of you will immediately reject it since it is from Vision Forum.
http://americanvision.org/733/tenth-amendment-interposition/
All civil authorities are God’s minister’s as indicated in Romans 13. When a higher magistrate does evil, it is the duty and responsibility of the lower magistrates to interpose themselves between the evil magistrate and the people.
THIS is really well done. I recommend it highly.
http://publisherscorner.nordskogpublishing.com/2008/01/eidsmoe-john-doctrine-of-interposition.html
I’ll slink away into the ether again.
Maybe this time someone will actually read the links and learn something.
[Chip Van Emmerik][Aaron Blumer] Gen. 9 and social contract. Personally I don’t see it there. I think it’s anachronistic to see it there. When we read “by man” we are being told that mankind has the responsibility to honor the life of mankind. What we’re not told is how this responsibility ought to be structured and carried out… only that it belongs to human beings. It’s pretty hard to read “government by consent of the governed” there.Just curious, how else would you see it implemented in the days immediately following the flood - probably for a century or more - until the population had rebounded to the point that a formal government structure could even be created?
I guess it’s fair to say the social contract idea has both a descriptive and prescriptive form. Though I’m not sure I understand Rousseau all that well, he seemed at times to argue that social contract is how governments in fact do form among men. But whether that’s Rousseau’s version of the concept or not, the following are two different things:
- a record of government forming by consent of the governed
- the idea/principle that all governments ought to exist only as long as the governed consent
The first is descriptive, the second prescriptive. I don’t really know how the first government formed after the flood. I do know that Gen. 9 does not prescribe social contract as a principle of how governments ought to form or continue to hold power.
To Farmer Tom, yes there are some events in Scripture in which people overthrew governments, or nation A overthrew nation B, etc. And even a few where a Israelite monarch violated the mosaic covenant (thus becoming arguably an illegal government) and God raised up an individual or group to put an end to the reign.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Farmer… took a look at the links. There is some category confusion here. These are two different things:
- participating in violent overthrow of a legal government
- using legal means to halt illegal activities by government
The interposition idea deals mainly with the latter, though it looks like it’s advocates sometimes do not distinguish between legal and illegal means of redress. To me, the distinction is pretty important (and I have to strongly object to the lawyer’s idea that the atonement is an example of that kind of interposition. Jesus did not intervene to rescue us from the injustice of the Father. Rather, He participated with the Father in a means of upholding His own and the Father’s justice while simultaneously pardoning sinners. This is very, very different from the governmental interposition idea)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I don’t know if it’s still in print, but Mark Knoll’s Christians in the American Revolution is a good look at the different positions believers took at the time. It functions almost like one of those Four Views books, encompassing 1) The Patriotic response, 2) The Reforming Response, 3) The Loyalist response and 4) the Pacifist response.
There is also a great multi-volume set of books published in 1876 called The Pulpit of the American Revolution or The Political Sermons of the Period of 1776, which has many, many sermons preached in those tumultuous times. Interesting stuff.
Thanks for the book suggestions.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Discussion